A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Most likely, we will continue to prop up a weak "national" government in Kabul which will exert little authority in the provinces, where conflict will continue. There have been warnings about the Taliban militias, and I don't know whether they post a real threat of changing things dramatically, assuming our troops stay there. But they're not going away, either.

I think they will break up and each ethnic group will merge with their bretheren over the border.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ironweed
Talk is cheap, but bandwith costs money.

FYI, you should bet on the outcome of a soccer game with Flower sometime if you want to give a little something back to the boards.

I would but my sum total of knowldege about soccer comes from reading Fever Pitch (and playing AYSO as a kid).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think they will break up and each ethnic group will merge with their bretheren over the border.

So who gets Kandahar and Kabul?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think they will break up and each ethnic group will merge with their bretheren over the border.

But, that requires strongmen accustomed to autonomy throwing their lot in with strongmen accustomed to total control (e.g. Uzbekistan). Not sure how that benefits the Afghan Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc. May make sense to the Pashtos, if Pakistan let the rest go.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky

Any American, including Charles Rangel and Howard Dean that have been pushing for us to pull out.

The guys who have really been doing bin Laden's bidding are in the White House. At a point when Afghanistan was increasing coming under control and the options for places to deploy and maintain significant a.Q. forces were dwindling, we created a place where thousands of them could likely find shelter. In the absence of Iraq, they'd be in places where it would be easier to root them out and control their recruitment.

Just as the first Iraq invasion was really the jumping off point for a.Q., this Iraq invasion has been a phenomenal gold mine for them. It gives them a reason to exist and helps build their support in the Arab world.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
But, that requires strongmen accustomed to autonomy throwing their lot in with strongmen accustomed to total control (e.g. Uzbekistan). Not sure how that benefits the Afghan Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc. May make sense to the Pashtos, if Pakistan let the rest go.

Many times I have tried to bring up talking about these ethnic groups in the middle east on this board and no ones was interested (it is my currrent favorite subject). Now we have a whole bunch of people engaged and I have step on an airplane. I will respond to these posts tonight but don't anyone dare leave - that especially goes for GGG, Cletus Miller, SAM, SS and Ty.

If I post on this stuff tonight and you guys disappear I will hunt you down and kill you. Not kidding.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
I will respond to these posts tonight but don't anyone dare leave - that especially goes for GGG, Cletus Miller, SAM, SS and Ty.

If I post on this stuff tonight and you guys disappear I will hunt you down and kiss you. Not kidding.

Been hanging with slave, I see.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Been hanging with slave, I see.

I've would try to work with various words built upon "hang" and tying into your relationship with Slave to try and make humorous ground here, perhaps gaining some of my 3 smiles for the day, but I must run.

like "that's better than being hung by Slave..." but that doesn't really make sense. if I had time believe me- POTY.

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
I've would try to work with various words built upon "hang" and tying into your relationship with Slave to try and make humorous ground here, perhaps gaining some of my 3 smiles for the day, but I must run.

like "that's better than being hung by Slave..." but that doesn't really make sense. if I had time believe me- POTY.

Hank:

"I heard you's was hung?"

Me:

"They's was right!"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think they will break up and each ethnic group will merge with their bretheren over the border.

Why would they do this? Warlords control many of those areas. Why would they give up their power to the neighboring national government?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
In that the war is over yes?

The White House understands that the "Mission Accomplished" thing was a mistake, so much so that they've edited the footage on the White House's web site of Bush speaking on the aircraft carrier so that the banner doesn't appear. So you are way, way out there in clinging to this notion that the war is over.

Lot more deaths in Peru.

I don't think so. According a 2003 Peruvian government report, the Shining Path was responsible for 31,000 deaths. According to the public health study (that conservatives dismissed as inconvenient), the war in Iraq has caused something like 600,000 deaths.

In any event, the conflict in Peru lasted much longer.

I don't think that matters. What matters is what the political leadership is saying, what the major papers are saying etc. and whether what they say inspires the the opposition and demoralizes our troops.

Propganda is important in any war, but many politicians, newspapers and pundits seem very irresponsible to me.

I'm still waiting for some empirical support for the idea that what people have said here in the U.S. has inspired Iraqi insurgents or, for that matter, demoralized our troops, or that any such effects have made much of a difference over there.

It is the politicians that use the over the top hyperbole. Bush is a war criminal, this war is immoral etc.

Which Democratic politician has called Bush a war criminal? And why is it over the top to call a war immoral? We live in a strange universe indeed when Republicans go apeshit over a blowjob in the White House but think that calling war "immoral" has no place in the political discourse.

The high turnout of the elections. That these desperate and unexperienced politicians were actually able to form a governnment, that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis supported the expulsio of Saddam Hussesin, that most Iraqis expect the country to stay intact, the fact that the electorate has gotten a taste of democracy and are always going to want to have it now etc.

So, nothing that's happened this year. Don't you think that's a bad sign?

We are training their soldiers now and when they are ready to fill the void we should let them in. But my guess is that get a large army up and running is least a decade proposition.

If it can't be done in two years, or five, why do you think it will work in ten? The situation there is actually getting worse.

Sounds like a lot of speculation to me.

Rival Shi'ite and Sunni groups are massing their militias in expectation of major confrontations, but no worry -- they're just speculating.

Their objection to Clinton's war was purely partisan. If it wasn't they would have done it behind closed doors. Some were responsible and said that they disagree with the strategy but now that it is a go we all have to stay united and make sure it is a success. Those were the ones I respected.

Me, too. I don't recall many of them, though.

What Democrats before the invasion pushed for more troops?

Listen to yourself. What Democrats did Bush involve in the war planning?

What Democrats have been actively pushing for more troops?

For one, John Kerry ran on a platform of increasing the Army by tens of thousand. The point here is that Bush was not constrained in fighting the war by Democrats who were for shrinking the military. Democrats were for increasing the size of the military.

Your memory what happened and mine are totally different. Bush did not have unanimous support when the war started.

Then wasn't it foolhardy to go to war on a plan that (apparently) depended on not losing any support along the way? Or was Bush a failure as a war leader for not having kept the American people with him?

I remember them being posted on this board. If I get the time I will look them up.

We'll all just wait here.

A few. But most are just bitching about the war.

How can you tell that most are "just bitching" instead of speaking out of principled opposition to a war?

And there definitely is not a coherent alternate Democrat strategy. They are all over the place. The only thing they do is complain, and the party leadership has not come up with an alternative. If the Democrat party united on one alternative strategy that would be one thing, but they don't have one. Just many, many, different opinions.

This is different from how the Democratic Party usually operates how? Don't make me quote Will Rogers again.

Everyone says that it is clear Bush screwed up. But they can't agree on how he screwed up. So then how can it be clear?

When you get home from the supermarket with a carton of broken eggs, you may not know whether you bought them that way or broke them on the way home, but you do know that you have a carton of broken eggs.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The White House understands that the "Mission Accomplished" thing was a mistake, so much so that they've edited the footage on the White House's web site of Bush speaking on the aircraft carrier so that the banner doesn't appear. So you are way, way out there in clinging to this notion that the war is over.



I don't think so. According a 2003 Peruvian government report, the Shining Path was responsible for 31,000 deaths. According to the public health study (that conservatives dismissed as inconvenient), the war in Iraq has caused something like 600,000 deaths.

In any event, the conflict in Peru lasted much longer.

I heard a UN report that had the Iraq number somewhere in the 100,000 range. (It was in this report on NPR. The Iraqi government disputes the October number, which nears 4000, but the reporter said that when she started talking to the morgues in Baghdad, they think it's probably higher.)

The Hopkins study looked at all deaths that stemmed from the conflict, including starvation and lack of proper medical care. I think the UN numbers are generally people directly killed.

On a personal note, I really, really think that Jamie Tarabay is doing an excellet job while Anne Garrels is getting some R&R back in the US for a few months. Garrels sounded absolutely dejected when she came off of this most recent tour in Iraq. Frankly, I'm shocked that she's gone back so many times. She won my heart when she reported on the invasion in the Baghdad Hotel, and the book on the experience is really interesting reading. I was a little wary of Jamie Tarabay, but she's doing a really thorough job.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
Yet we spend a lot of time blathering on this board, don't we?

"This" Board, dude?

PS - don't forget about Saturday

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Rory Stewart's book about walking across Afghanistan is one the New York Times' top ten books of 2006.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I was thinking the 2000 election changed how we feel about the power of our vote.

I knew about the electoral college, and I saw the networks knock off state by state results in past elections, but still I could look at the popular total vote and see my vote, and see who was "winning."

then 2000, that gets turned on it's head. it was such an odd moment that at least one careful politician (Hillary) actually said such dumb shit (We need to do away with the electoral college!) that she was obviously also shocked.

I think you're right in some respects Hank. The 2000 election was a revelation for a lot of people -- those who'd barely heard of the electoral college and those who know the system but hadn't really considered it.

Although some of this noise was lost in the recount battle in Florida, I think many people were shocked that a candidate who didn't win the popular vote won the Presidency. First time in what, 100+ years?

Clinton had won with a plurality in 1992 and 1996(?), but in each case he was still clearly the leading/most popular candidate.

I'm not sure that this affected people's perception of the power of their own vote, though.

The close divide in American politics and the realignment of the parties, and (I think) the rise of new forms of media (for communication, fundraising, the community building and dividing efffects of the Internet) make such close races more likely to occur in the future. Given the increase in partisanship, I think that is more lilely to motivate people to vote rather than less -- especially if control of Congress swaps back and forth a bit, so folks can see results.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We've gone from being on the soccer pitch, or at least thinking we were, to being in the stands.

Shift in perception maybe, not reality.

S_A_M

P.S. There -- now change out of that house coat into something decent -- you have company!